On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Isaac Dupree wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
Translated to the tuple issue, I use only one function of type field1 :: f -> t -> (f,t) which is a combination of 'get' and 'set'. Using this function you can implement a generic 'set', 'get', and 'update'. Of course, you can argue that it is bad style to put the distinct 'set' and 'get' functionalities into one function.
I like that style. It reminds me of the zipper pattern, of accessors (or something like that). ...which is more important for more complicated things (Maps?) (Uniplate.)
I don't know when I'd want to use a function polymorphic in tuple size - _personally_ I'd rather stick to simpler types and ... probably pattern-matching.
Me too. I think, I've never used other tuples than pairs and triples. Records are much clearer and safer.